DNA links Denver burglary, child assault

[Shylock]

DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.

Either you didn't read my last post, or you didn't understand it. We're not talking about, or concerned with anything to do with JBR.

 

[MIBRO]

Either you didn't read my last post, or you didn't understand it. We're not talking about, or concerned with anything to do with JBR.

Are we on the same planet? Your last post mentioning DNA - #96 - was with regard to DNA evidence in the Ramsey case.

It doesn't matter. The FACTS are STILL the same: Your marble analogy is way off side and irrelevant. The peaks of a mixed sample explanation is still the same. It is pretty clear to me that YOU really don't have a clue what you are talking about and when it is made abundantly clear to anyone reading this stuff, you come up with .... well, I don't quite know what to call that response - something out of the twilight zone? Do you even remember your own writings?

For the record, here is your post #96:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIBRO
Shylock, mixed stains can be separated quite easily.
It is not a "mish mash" of confusion for the scientists to separate the known from the unknown. Forensic scientists are quite capable of separting mixed stains of, not only more than one contributor, but of multiple contributors.

MIBRO, it sounds like you're pretty lost when it comes to DNA technology. You quoted passages from Lee's book, but then your comments make it obvious you don't understand what he's talking about.

A perfect example is your statement about scientists being able to "separate the known from the unknown". That's true - and they were certainly able to separate JonBenet's own/known DNA from the fractured mystery DNA.
HOWEVER, what they can't do is separate the unknown from the unknown.

The fractured mystery DNA found on JonBenet could very well be a mish-mash of more than one person. But because they don't have a control sample (or samples) of any of the mystery donors, they have no idea how many people are in the mash and where to even begin to start separating them.

This is why the experts from CellMark told the BPD that if the fractured DNA is from more than donor then nobody, including the Ramsey males, could be excluded as possible donors.

To make it simple for you, imagine a person who has no knowledge of color looking into a bucket of red, green, and blue marbles. That person sees no difference at all in the marbles--the are all the same. But now give that person a red marble, tell him it's "red", and they are able to pick ALL the red marbles out of the bucket.
The fractured mystery DNA in the JonBenet case has no red marble to separate from the mish-mash.

And, here is my response #1, post #98:

Well, in reply, to start with I do not have Lee's book so I definitely DID NOT quote from it. I quoted from "Interpretation of Complex Forensic DNA Mixtures" (as noted in my post) contributed to the Croatian Medical Journal, 2001, by Carll Ladd, Henry C. Lee, Nicholas Yang, and Frederick R. Bieber

Secondly, of course they can separate out the unknown DNA. They have submitted IT TO CODIS!

("The detection and interpretation of mixtures is a routine, yet often challenging aspect of forensic DNA analysis. Occasionally we have observed profiles from highly degraded/low DNA quantify samples where one amplication kit detects multiple contributors, whereas the other system does not.")

Thirdly, my reply to you was to point out your erroneous statements that the DNA is a mish-mash. To point out that, of course, they can separate out the victim's DNA and to point out that they can separate out the UNKNOWN contributor(s) as well.

You have misrepresented the DNA facts all around, Shylock, and your marble example is YOUR view, not the reality of DNA analysis. It really is a shame that you are contributing to the misunderstanding of such a fine and valuable science.

And here is further clarification with response #2, post #100

Let me see if I can explain it to YOU, Shylock (as simply as possible). The very specific locations for DNA identification show two different peaks at each site (loci). One peak matches JonBenet's, the other 'identifies' the unknown contributor: Two different peaks, two different donors. At each loci the non-matching peaks (to JB's known sample) = the unknown donor's peaks. DNA profile of unknown donor = peaks not matching JBR's.

 

[Shylock]

The presence of the ligature marks around JonBenét's neck as shown in the autopsy photos means she was strangled by ligature.
HOW do marks APPEAR ("the cord left a red hemorage mark") POST-MORTEM? Ummm, Shylock, the body doesn't hemorrhage after death ergo no POST-MORTEM hemorrhage marks.

Totally wrong MIBRO. Unfortunately you were not around when we had multiple long threads about "post-mortem bruising". I suggest you punch that phrase into Google and read all about it. Photos were even posted here showing autopsy examples of post-mortem bruising.

And most important, not only does the body hemorrhage after death, but post-mortem hemorrhaging is very identifiable because it occures only at the point of where the pressure is. (The applied pressure taking the place of normal blood pressure to force the blood out of the broken veins.)

"POST-MORTEM BRUISING can occur but needs great force to produce small bruise. After death blood is under physical pressure only. There is only a passive ooze from blood vessels ruptured after death rather than the active extravasation under pressure which occurs in life. Most likely to occur within areas of post mortem lividity where blood is under greater physical pressure and over bony prominences where tissues may be crushed against the underlying bone"
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/woundsdws.htm

Now isn't that a perfect description of what you see on JBR's neck!
As I stated before, the fact that the hemorrhaging is only under the cord is a perfect indication of post-mortem bruising. Couple that with no damage whatsoever to the internal organs in her neck and what you have is the garrote was applied AFTER she was already dead.

By the way MIBRO, are you a fan of the television show "CSI"? They pride themselves in being "forensically correct" and last year they actually used this exact scenerio in one of their plots. (Not that it proves anything, but I thought some people might find this interesting) :
"Cautiously, they enter the house, and find Audrey, hanging from an upper railing, an extension cord wrapped around her neck. During the initial investigation, Grissom sees post mortem bruising around Audrey's neck. He also sees another set of marks around her neck under the extension cord. This leads him to believe that she was strangled first and then hung."
http://www.csifiles.com/reviews/csi/a_night_at_the_movies.shtml

 

[Shylock]

Are we on the same planet?
The FACTS are STILL the same:

No, we are NOT on the same planet. And NO the facts are NOT still the same.

YOU are posting about separating JBR's DNA from an unknown mixture and how easy it is. I don't dispute that AT ALL, because JBR has a KNOWN profile. AS YOU STATED, it is E-A-S-Y to separate a known DNA profile from an unknown profile.

***Read the above paragraph again 10 times MIBRO, I'm actually AGREEING with you!!!!!***

Where you are totally lost, and why you don't even understand the marble analogy, is that: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE TWO OR MORE UNKNOWN PROFILES BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO REFERENCE POINTS.

That's why the fractured mystery DNA found on JBR can be a mish-mash of more than one donor. This is what the experts from CellMark told the BPD for crying out loud!

Sheeesh MIBRO! - I'm agreeing with what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the the foreign DNA!

 

[BlueCrab]

Since it is unknown whether the foreign DNA is from one source or from more than one source, the foreign DNA argument can go on forever. The laws of probability have to come into play eventually so the most likely scenario can be constructed.

Most often, any foreign DNA found at a crime scene is from just one source. Therefore, it is most likely that the foreign DNA found on JonBenet is from one source. If so, that would eliminate all of the Ramseys as a donor of the foreign DNA. It would mean there was likely a fifth person in the house that night.

Thus, crime scene theories, using what DNA evidence is known and using the laws of probability, should follow "fifth person in the house" scenarios.

JMO

 

[Toth]

Ofcourse. Everyone knows that Lee's "spitting on the sidewalk" stuff is nonsense from a practical point of view. They just don't want to admit it becauxe then the Ramseys would be viewed as innocent.

 

[Shylock]

Everyone knows that Lee's "spitting on the sidewalk" stuff is nonsense from a practical point of view.

I think that comment refers to the fact that there are a million places JonBenet could have touched where she picked up someone's DNA which was eventually transfered to her panties during a trip to the bathroom.

 

[Shylock]

Most often, any foreign DNA found at a crime scene is from just one source. Therefore, it is most likely that the foreign DNA found on JonBenet is from one source.

BlueCrab,
You're correct in your first sentence above, but wrong to make that assumption in your second sentence.

Most often DNA samples in general are from one source. BUT... Most often they know what the source of the DNA is. AND...Most often they obtain a complete DNA profile from the sample.

You have to remember that the experts said that this DNA might not even exist at all, that it might be "stutter effect".
There is good reason it's been said that this is NOT a DNA case. Don't try to compare this case to any other case that is "normal".

 

[Toth]

You think, as usual, incorrectly.

The comment refers to Lee's oft-repeated example of finding some bodily fluid on the crime-scene sidewalk and thinking it is entirely related to the crime rather than possibly composed of both crime-related dna and some innocently acquired dna such as on a prior occasion someone expectorated at what later became a crime scene.

This shows the lengths to which people will go to try to explain away the rogue dna found in the panties and under the nails with such lame 'thoughts' as shaking hands or going to the toilette or wearing garments packed by factory workers. As if other female victims of violence and sexual assaults don't go to the toilette ever or ever wear clothes from a factory.

 

[Shylock]

The comment refers to Lee's oft-repeated example of finding some bodily fluid on the crime-scene sidewalk and thinking it is entirely related to the crime rather than possibly composed of both crime-related dna and some innocently acquired dna such as on a prior occasion someone expectorated at what later became a crime scene.

Well "DUH", Toth...isn't that what I just said?
"there are a million places JonBenet could have touched where she picked up someone's DNA"
That includes spit on the sidewalk, Toth...
Are you having reading comprehension problems this morning, or what?

 

[Ivy]

Toth, please post a reliable, non-Lin Wood-based source that states that foreign skin cells or foreign blood cells were found under JonBenet's fingernails, providing evidence that she scratched her attacker. You can't, can you? The so-called "foreign" DNA under her fingernails, as well as that found in her panties, could be innocent transfer DNA, or stutter from the amplification process, whether you like it or not.

imo

 

[Shylock]

Toth, please post a reliable, non-Lin Wood-based source that states that foreign skin cells or foreign blood cells were found under JonBenet's fingernails, providing evidence that she scratched her attacker.

You're right Ivy, he can't. And that "scratched her attacker" nonsense didn't even originate with Limp Woody, that was pure B.S. concocted by JammySkank.

Toth desperately wants to relate this case to a normal rape/homicide:
"As if other female victims of violence and sexual assaults don't go to the toilette ever or ever wear clothes from a factory.
Fortunately his efforts are nothing but futile because the truth is out there--this is not a normal DNA case--it's not a DNA case at all.

In all the other cases where females are "victims of violence and sexual assaults" there is probably just as much DNA contamination as in the Ramsey case, BUT...there is also a strong identifiable source for the perps DNA, as in semen, saliva, etc. You can throw the process contamination out the window when you have an actual DNA source that can be identified.
The Ramsey case has no identifiable DNA source - all it has is contamination.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

When a person is sexually assaulted and/or murdered, DNA is sought from the victim's nail clippings, from the underwear, and from the point of sexual assault (rape kit swabs).

DNA found on the victim and not identified as belonging to the victim becomes poential evidence that the DNA belongs to the person who committed the assault and/or murder.

This is every day, typical, logical, forensic thinking. Cases are solved nearly everyday by comparing the DNA from a victim's nails and a victim's clothing to the DNA of the suspect and finding a "match".

It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!

 

[Shylock]

This is every day, typical, logical, forensic thinking. Cases are solved nearly everyday by comparing the DNA from a victim's nails and a victim's clothing to the DNA of the suspect and finding a "match".
You're right LovelyPigeon, but what you managed to ignore in my post was that in "every day, typical, logical, forensic thinking" an identifiable source for the foreign DNA is found. There was no identifiable source for the degraded foreign DNA found on JonBenet.

It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!
It's not ridiculous to disregard and file away anything that can't even be proven to be related to the crime. This is how cases are solved--by process of elimination. If you don't treat potential evidence this way, all you do is look stupid chasing your tail in circles like Lou Smit and his "packing peanut", which can't even be dated to the MONTH of the crime, much less to the crime itself.

 

[BlueCrab]

When a person is sexually assaulted and/or murdered, DNA is sought from the victim's nail clippings, from the underwear, and from the point of sexual assault (rape kit swabs).

DNA found on the victim and not identified as belonging to the victim becomes poential evidence that the DNA belongs to the person who committed the assault and/or murder.

This is every day, typical, logical, forensic thinking. Cases are solved nearly everyday by comparing the DNA from a victim's nails and a victim's clothing to the DNA of the suspect and finding a "match".

It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!

LP,

I tend to agree with you. The DNA may not be the best preserved sample in the world with all 13 markers readable, but it beats the hell out of nothing. It's gotta be considered. Even if just a half a dozen markers are readable in a sample, it can narrow the search considerably. We can't just assume some or all of the 10 foreign markers in the sample on JonBenet are stutter.

JMO

 

[Britt]

They just don't want to admit it becauxe then the Ramseys would be viewed as innocent.

And why, exactly, would "they" do that? Why would anyone, much less LE professionals, give a one way or the other?

What grandiose fantasy is that? John and Patsy Ramsey were a couple of nobodies, and still would be if they hadn't killed their daughter (MO).

Who would be motivated by blindly persecuting the Ramseys, and why would the Ramseys be blindly persecuted? (operative word there is "blind") As if they're tormented Biblical characters... lol... well, John does think he's Job... poor deluded dear... and let's not get started on Patsy's delusions...

 

[Ivy]

LovelyPigeon claims that...
It's ridiculous to say JonBenét's case should be an exception and just disregard unidentified male DNA from her nail clippings and the crotch of her blood-stained panties!

Okay, LP, now I'm asking you to provide a legitimate, official declaration that the fingernails DNA and the panties DNA are from the same source. Can you do that? Of course not.

No one knows when the last time was that JonBenet washed her hands. If the extra markers in the fingernails sample aren't stutter bands, the DNA could have come from more than one person. If the DNA was from more than one person, no one, including the Ramseys, can be excluded. Anyway, the sample was degraded, not complete, and had to be amplified to get anything at all from it.

The panties sample was poor too. It had to be amplified so that a profile could be, in LW's words, "worked up." It wasn't found "comingled" with JonBenet's blood. It was "comingled" with her blood in the DNA lab and possibly before that to some extent, when JonBenet's blood dripped onto a skosh of Sum Yung Gai's old dried sneeze-spit from the factory. At any rate, it is logical to assume that the "foreign" DNA was on the panties before JonBenet wore them...and even before Patsy bought them.

imo

 

[Shylock]

It wasn't found "comingled" with JonBenet's blood. It was "comingled" with her blood in the DNA lab and possibly before that to some extent, when JonBenet's blood dripped onto a skosh of Sum Yung Gai's old dried sneeze-spit from the factory.

LOL Ivy!

And here's another possibility. All you pro-Ram sleuths can actually try this at home, in your very own makeshift DNA lab! (Hey Toth, this is right up your alley!):

Take very small drops of red and blue food coloring and place them side-by-side in the crotch of a pair of new white panties. Let the drops completely dry, then put the panties on and pee in them! Take note how quickly the dried red and blue drops "comingle" to create the color magenta!

Since JonBenet did urinate in her panties, I think I'll call this the "Pee Soup Theory". Kindly refer to it as such in all future postings.
Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Ivy]

Shylock, do I have permission to refer to your Pee Soup Theory in my posts? Of course, I will give you credit for the theory, just as I used to with your Sum Yung Gai Theory till it became so famous that everyone who was anyone was referring to it, and SYG became a household word...er, name. lol

imo

I just tested your Pee Soup Theory...and yes, you are definitely right. Nuff said. Now, off to change my undies.

 

[MIBRO]

Shylock, you really must look into this whole subject more closely. Of course they can identify the unknown contributor DNA profile, even if the forensic DNA had multiple contributors. As I said before, in the Ramsey case, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED IT TO CODIS. I know you know that, but I get the sense that some here don't keep that in mind.

As for mixed stains with more than one unknown contributor, yes, they CAN separate out the "unknowns from the unknowns". There are KNOWN mathematical elements to complex equations used to establish the profile of unknown contributor identifiers. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE look into this. It is not a subject that can be so easily demonstrated on a discussion board, keeping it within the range of laymen's terms.

(Curran, Triggs, Buckleton, Weir, Interpreting DNA mixtures in structured populations, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1999)

There are complex mathematical equations that 'fill in the blanks' to establish the identity of "unknowns" and they are administered by specific computer programs.

I remember that you challenged me a few months ago that there were no mathematical calculations in establishing useful forensic DNA conclusions. I believe you have since modified your stance on that issue, now, I ask you to please look into THIS QUESTION and update your position.

P.S. Once you are done, I think you will see how silly the "Pee Soup Theory" and the "Red Marble" analogy both are. Entertaining, though.